§ SIR DE LACY EVANSrose to propose the Motion relative to rewards for the army of which he had given notice. In bringing forward this Motion, he believed he was justified in saying that the officers of the army were less considered and less fairly rewarded than officers in any other department of the State. That circumstance, coupled with the fact, that some years had now elapsed since any statement on behalf of the officers of the army had been made to the House, induced him at the present moment to press the subject upon the attention of the Government. The claims of the army were often met in that House in a very summary manner; the answer being, that the expenses of the army, navy, and ordnance departments were already so great, that nothing more could be done for that particular branch of the service. He wished the House to remember, however, that not less than 5,000,000l. sterling of the amount voted for those services had nothing whatever to do with the personnel of the armed force—such, for example, as the packet service, the convict service, the building of ships and docks, and numerous other items, from which neither the army, the navy, nor the ordnance derived any benefit whatever. During the advocacy of the claims of the navy, constant allusion was made to the age of the officers holding the ranks of captains and commanders; and there could be no doubt, as stated in the Report of the Commission of Naval and Military Inquiry, that the ages of the naval officers generally 880 were so far advanced, as in many cases to preclude the possibility of expecting good and efficient service from them. But the Commission added—
And doubtless an equal degree of inefficiency would have been shown in the army, if the statements had contained, as those from the Admiralty do, one general table of all ranks, either in full pay or in retirement, or who had at any time belonged to the service.He believed that the colonels averaged forty-seven years in the service. To show that the power of giving promotion was more frequently used by the Admiralty than by the Commander-in-Chief, he would refer the House to the evidence of Lord Fitzroy Somerset, given before the Committee in 1833. Lord Fitzroy Somerset said—Perhaps it may not be generally known that the promotion of the army without purchase, which is the only promotion that affects the public purse, is much less than it is in the navy. In 1831, one major was promoted to be lieutenant-colonel, while seven commanders were made post-captains; seven captains of the army obtained majorities, and fourteen naval lieutenants were made commanders.He did not wish to prejudice the claims of the navy — he considered them of the strongest character; but he contended that, neglected as both services had been, the army had been much more neglected even than the navy. He would now take the allowance granted to retired officers of both officers, and he would place them in juxtaposition. There were 619 naval captains on the half-pay list, with an allowance of 130,003l. a year, and 669 commanders, with an allowance of 107,665l. a year, altogether 237,668l. Now, what was the amount in the army?—and the House must remember that there were in the army, of all ranks, 139,000, whilst in the navy there were only 29,500. In the army the half-pay list of officers of corresponding rank with captains and commanders in the navy was as follows:—881 It was stated by officers in the navy that the retired list at present was not adequate. But if 80,000l. were not adequate for the retired list of the navy, how insufficient must 14,000l. a year be for the retired list of the army! In advocating the claims of the officers of the army, they were sometimes met with the cry, "Oh but you have got the privilege of purchasing;" and a very pretty privilege it was! Instead of being a benefit or a privilege, he could not but characterize it as the most oppressive usury, and as highly dishonourable to the Governments which had sanctioned it for so many years. He did not hesitate to say, that no other profession in the country was so highly taxed as that of the soldier for the benefit of the State. The defence of the system of purchasing was, that it relieved the State from the necessity of purchasing retirement for old officers. Lot them take now the position of a general officer, of whom there were at present 265, having been reduced to that number from 576 in 1815, and from 419 in 1833. Let them see what was the condition of the general officer who enjoyed a regiment and a salary of 1,000 a year. About 100 of those officers had 1,000 a year; the rest of them had only 400 a year. Those 265 officers then received about 100,000l. a year between them; 200 of them had purchased their commissions, and they would find that at the minimum infantry price they had paid about 800,000l. before they had got their regiments. He would take now the case of the most fortunate class, of a lieutenant-colonel of the Guards. A lieutenant-colonel of the Guards paid 12,000l., perhaps, for his commission: add to that the interest which he lost for twenty years, and, if very fortunate, at sixty years of age, he gets 1,000 a year. Evidently, pecuniarily, he must be a decided loser. The State had obtained his services for less than he was out of pocket. A few days ago a case was mentioned, which led to the Government being seriously reproached for taking advantage of a young recruit. Why, he doubted whether the young officer might not justly complain of being politically swindled by the Government in a still greater degree, for he heard of pensions and honours and medals granted with prodigious profuseness, and fancied perhaps some day to succeed to those rewards. Now, what was the actual debtor and creditor account of those 265 general officers to whom he had referred with the State? They had bought their commis- 882 sions at a cost of more than a million of money; and for that at an advanced age half of them received a life annuity of 1,000l. a year. They were not allowed to sell their annuity; and the million which they had expended, with at least twenty years' accumulation, was inevitably lost to their families. What chance had the old officer of having his services adequately acknowledged? Lot them take as an example the following case, which resembled so many others: During a recent debate in that House, the name of a commanding officer of a regiment was introduced, whose exemplary conduct met the approbation of all sides of the House. That officer had served forty-six years, and had been twenty years the commander of a regiment. According to their present mode of promotion, in ten years that officer might be major-general, and in fifteen years he might perchance have a regiment and 1,000 a year. But thirty years before, he had paid 10,000 guineas for his commission. To that sum let them add the accumulated interest, and they would see what his family lost by his services to the State. He had no hesitation in saying that the officers of the army of this country were worse off than the officers in the French army; and this struck him as being particularly unjust, when it was known, as was stated in the Report of the Committee of 1833, that—
195 lieutenant-colonels £41,155 a year 281 majors 48,754 a year In all £89,909 a year as against 237,668l. Again, the naval retired list was much higher than the army retired list. In the navy there were 52 captains £10,110 a year 292 commanders 40,067 a year Altogether £80,177 a year whilst against that, in the army were— 20 lieutenant-colonels £6,205 a year 20 majors 5,840 a year 20 lieutenant-colonels, 100l. a year each (30 years constant service) 2,000 a year £14,045
LORD J. RUSSELLI find it extremely difficult to make a proper reply to the hon. and gallant Officer who has just sat down; for it is impossible to discuss adequately and properly all the various claims of the officers and men of our army and navy, and to point out in detail how their services ought to be rewarded. I think that the House acts wisely and consistently when, in voting sums for the maintenance of the army and navy, it leaves the distribution of those sums to the advisers of the Crown and the Naval and Military Departments. With respect to the elaborate comparison made by the hon. and gallant Officer between the army and navy, I must say I think he has underrated the advantages enjoyed by the officers of the army. We had a Committee to inquire into the subject; and it appeared, in relation to the command of regiments, that we have 98 regiments of infantry, and 26 of cavalry; and that officers in the army enjoy, in consequence, advantages which are not shared by officers in the navy—that, in fact, they have rewards to which there are no similar rewards in the navy. The hon. and gallant Member quoted the opinion of the Duke of Wellington on the subject of purchase. The Duke of Wellington, by an elaborate and detailed expression of opinion, made out a case for the maintenance of the present system of purchases in our army. I believe, however, if the system of purchase in the army were now, instead of being so long established, introduced for the first time, the arguments against purchase might preponderate; but, existing as it does, and conferring, according to the opinion of the Duke of Wellington, advantages both upon the State and the Army, I think it ought not to be lightly relinquished at an enormous expense. The present system of purchase affords to many old officers the means of obtaining certain sums by the sale of their commissions to younger officers, who thus fill their places, and are placed in a position, after the lapse of some years, to obtain similar sums if they wish to dispose of their commissions. The hon. and gallant Member proposes that there should be some rewards offered to 885 the army commensurate with the plan of retirement which has been proposed for the navy; but all I can say with respect to that is, that the Commander-in-Ghief does not think that such a course is requisite, and that such a plan as that proposed in the navy ought not to be proposed for adoption with respect to the army. The House will recollect that some years ago a question of the nature now before us was brought forward for its consideration; and I, being then a Minister of the Crown, stated it was impossible for this House to judge of the merits of the various Motions brought for-ward on behalf of the army, navy, and marines, and that I thought it better that a Commission should be formed to inquire into those claims, that Commission to consist partly of officers of the navy of high rank, partly of officers of the army of high rank, and partly of Members of the Legislature who usually occupied a prominent position in the consideration of public affairs. The Commission was appointed, and amongst its Members it numbered the Duke of Wellington, Sir George Cockburn, and other distinguished officers of the army and navy who recommended certain measures for the adoption of the House. Those measures were adopted, and I own after that I feel a difficulty in agreeing to other plans which may be proposed by hon. Members of this House. [Sir DE LACY EVANS: I proposed no particular plan.] That is true; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to make another observation. He says that officers of the army who have served a number of years suffer an actual loss of money in consequence of the small income which they derive from the State and the slowness of promotion. I do not see how, under the present circumstances, that can altogether be avoided. The House will recollect that we were some years ago engaged in a war which required prodigious exertions and a numerous army, in order to enable us to meet a formidable enemy. A state of peace followed; and when such a state of peace continues, as it has continued, for thirty years, when we have consequently a greatly reduced army and navy, promotion must necessarily become slow, and it is inevitable that a great number of officers cannot be advanced without putting the country to an enormous expense. That is a state of things which I do not see how we can avoid. With regard to granting medals to those who fought at Trafalgar and in the Peninsula, I must say that I 886 think it involves a question which ought to have been considered and submitted to Parliament at the end of the war. It is now forty years since the battle of Trafalgar, and thirty-two years since the last of the services of our army in the Peninsula ceased; and I think it is rather late to call upon the advisers of the Crown to bring forward the question of rewards for services which are so long passed. I have no doubt Lord Liverpool and the Duke of Wellington considered what ought to be done at the termination of the war, with a view to reward the services of those who were engaged in that war. I will not, therefore, venture to say now whether the course which was taken on that occasion was such as to place those officers who fought at Trafalgar, and who advanced against the enemy from Lisbon to Toulouse, in the position which they ought to occupy. It is too late, in my opinion, now to propose the adoption of a new course with respect to those officers, and I must therefore oppose the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member.
§ MR. HUMEchallenged the hon. and gallant Officer to bring this question before the House next Session in such a shape as would enable him (Mr. Hume) to bring forward detailed arithmetical statements respecting it, and he would engage to show that the expense for officers in the British army was threefold that of the officers of the French army; in fact, no State of Europe had to pay so heavy a charge for officers of the army as England. He believed we had more generals in England, with our 100,000 men, than they had in France with their 400,000 men. The principle of purchase was most objectionable, as enabling interest to gain rank over merit. He had been long enough with the army to have seen the ill-effects produced, when meritorious officers of experience found themselves superseded by more boys, as happened every day. If merit were more recognized, a class of officers would be obtained who would be more devoted to their duties and to the service.
§ CAPTAIN PECHELLhoped, that next Session, the House would take into consideration the questions of purchasing commissions, and the favouritism at the Horse Guards. Meantime, he thanked the gallant Officer, the Member for Westminster, for the honest and zealous intention he had shown to benefit the neglected condition of those who had rendered such distinguished services to the country.
§ CAPTAIN CARNEGIEthought the gallant Officer had completely succeeded in making out a case. The same question had been mooted in the House of Commons two and a half years ago. He (Captain Carnegie) was then absent, and had no opportunity of discussing the subject; but, on referring to the report of the debate which then took place, he found that the chief opponent of the proposal then made was Sir H. Hardinge—now very justly created Viscount Hardinge; but on that occasion, the gallant Officer could have little expected that in so short a period he should have himself to distribute medals to some of the very officers to whom he then denied them, for their distinguished services at the battles of Meanee, Aliwal, and Sobraon. He did not consider the paucity of their numbers, or the distance of time, any reason for withholding these medals still.
§ CAPTAIN LAYARDstated, without the fear of contradiction, that there was no service in England so ill requited as the army, and that without money or interest no amount of industry, ability, or assiduity could, taking the average of men, advance them in their profession. This was a question which had been too long neglected; but he hoped it would receive more attention in future. He feared that, at present, the system of purchasing commissions could not be done away with, because there was so much money invested in that way, and he suspected the House was not prepared to agree to grant compensation for that sum. But the system was undoubtedly a very bad one. On the subject of granting medals to the old veterans of Trafalgar and the Peninsula, he confessed he felt very deeply. He was delighted to hear the speech of the gallant officer opposito (Captain Carnegie), who had referred to Sir H. Hardinge, an officer for whom he (Captain Layard) entertained great respect, and he never felt so sorry as when he heard him oppose the proposition of giving medals to the old soldiers in question; but when that officer had himself received pensions and rewards from that House, and when he had found that, in India, the best and most proper way of rewarding the men whom he there commanded was by distributing medals against them, he confessed it did seem to him astonishing that those who had performed far more gallant deeds than the men who had been thus rewarded in India, should be refused a similar honour. He had seen last week, a 888 report of the address of Sir Charles Napier to the regiments of Kurrachee, on presenting to them the Meanee medals, in which he said—
Thus soldiers medals are won—more by discipline than by any extraordinary efforts of individual courage. To reward this obedience medals are bestowed, so that every man who wears this honoured badge is known to the world as one who, in the midst of the noise, the danger, and the confusion of battle, had obeyed his orders and performed the three great duties of a soldier—first, not to fire without orders; next, when he does fire, to level low, so as to make sure of striking down an enemy; thirdly, to keep his ranks and dress upon his colours, The medal tells the world that he has bravely done these things, and no man can walk with one of these medals on his breast without feeling the conscious pride of an intrepid soldier.But he would ask the House and the country what must be the feelings of those old Peninsular veterans, who by their skill and bravery had made themselves the wonder and admiration of the world, when they walked by with no medals to grace their breast, and saw those who, though they had done all that was demanded of them, had not been tried to one quarter the extent the Peninsular veterans had been tried? Look at the French army, where such honours were freely bestowed. France knew the cheap advantage of giving medals for great actions. It was no answer to say that the actions for which these honours were claimed occurred 30 or 40 years ago. If they had done wrong in withholding those honours, that was no reason why they should not now do right. He trusted that the heads of the army would yet be persuaded to take the subject into consideration. He hoped that the Motion which had to-day been so ably brought under their consideration would again be brought forward, and that the time was coming when they would not consider length of time any exoneration from doing justice to those who so well deserved it.
§ SIR W. VERNERregretted to perceive that the welfare of the army excited so little interest, that on a question of this importance there should not be twenty Members present. The gallant officer opposite (Sir D. L. Evans) was entitled to the thanks of the army for the manner in which he had brought their services under the notice of the House. He knew that the officers who had served in the Peninsula felt very much that they had nothing to show for their long services. He had heard that at one time it had been intended to give them medals, but it was said the die had been 889 broken after it was made. He had himself the honour to wear the only medal which had been issued during the war, except to those in command—he meant the medal for Waterloo—and he saw no reason why a similar honour should not be conferred upon those who had served in the Peninsula.
COLONEL REIDagreed most cordially in every word that had fallen from the hon. Member for Westminster; and he begged to tender the hon. and gallant Member his sincere thanks for the zealous way in which he had espoused the cause of the army. The hon. Member for Montrose had stated that the State derived no benefit from the purchase of commissions. He maintained that it did. A short time ago, for instance, he, after being thirty years in the army, and having no chance of seeing foreign service, determined to retire upon full pay. He applied, and was told he could do so, provided he paid the whole amount of a full-pay commission. Well, he paid 4,500l., which was the full-pay price for a commission, but this did not go into the pocket of the officer who vacated for him. Part of it went into the public purse, and he had been told that it was for the purpose of reducing the heavy amount of the half-pay list. There was one practice with regard to officers' commissions which appeared to him to involve much hardship to individuals. It was this, that if an officer died, his commission (even though it might have cost him 10,000l.) was immediately given to another officer who had the privilege of selling it immediately. Thus the estate of the deceased officer was less by so much. A case of this kind happened to a brother officer of his, who was so attached to his regiment that he could not be prevailed on to sell out, and he died, holding his commission, which was immediately given to a riding-master in another regiment, who held the rank of lieutenant, and by whom it was at once sold.
§ MR. F. MAULEagreed with his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) that it was hard to call on the Government to give a specific answer to a question which involved, in the first place, a very considerable outlay; and, secondly, the substitution of a new system for the present system of promotions and rewards in the army. His hon. and gallant Friend (Sir De Lacy Evans) had designated the system of purchase as most oppressive. Although in some respects he might agree with his hon. and gallant Friend, still he could not concur in 890 so sweeping a condemnation. Under the present system there had been no difficulty in getting officers for the army, who were undoubtedly both brave and able, and ready and willing to discharge their duty under all circumstances. He was not sure if the same system were carried out among the regiments of the line as that which was followed in the artillery, whether they would not find, when regiments were ordered upon colonial and foreign service, that very great detriment would accrue to the army. It had been the fashion to accuse the Horse Guards of an improper distribution of patronage: so long as patronage vested in the hands of individuals, there would be no doubt cases of disappointment; but he was sure that patronage was administered by those at the head of the army as fairly as possible. His hon. and gallant Friend had stated that the very last thing that he would advise any man, whether in or out of the House, to do, would be to bring up one of his sons to the army as a profession. He could, however, assure his hon. and gallant Friend, that the number of applications for commissions, even under the present system of purchase, exceeded the vacancies that might be expected to occur in the course of twenty years. He did not think, therefore, that the service could be quite so unpopular as his hon. and gallant Friend represented it to be. After what had been stated by his noble Friend he need not enter into the general subject; but he would only say that it must be the wish not only of the present but of every Government to give every consideration to the claims both of the army and the navy with regard to rewards and promotions. When the proper time arrived, he trusted that the House would be ready to enter upon the consideration of the claims of old officers. With reference to the question of medals and decorations for services rendered many years ago, it seemed to him that the subject must have been fully considered by the Government of that day, and that it was now too late to make any recommendation to the Sovereign on such a subject.
§ SIR DE LACY EVANS, in reply, said that in bringing forward his Motion, it had not been his intention to press the House to come to a vote upon the question of presenting an address to Her Majesty, but simply to elicit the opinions of the Government on the subject; and he must say that the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not be satisfactory to the 891 army or to the country. With the leave of the House, he would now withdraw his Motion; but unless proper measures were taken by the Government, he would bring-forward his Motion again early next Session.
§ Motion withdrawn.